Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

'Read-only' merely echoes the readOnlyHint annotation, so no credit there. However, with no output schema, the description usefully discloses the response payload — alert definitions with firing state plus aggregate counts (total/enabled/firing, triggers in last 24h) — which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before usage and filters; every clause carries information. Slightly dense but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return contents and available filters, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps (pagination/ordering behavior) are already covered by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, max page size and the severity enum. The description's filter list (search, enabled, severity, resource_type, cluster_id) is largely restatement, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the organisation's alert definitions') and scopes it with 'current firing state' plus org-wide metrics, which clearly distinguishes it from create_alert, delete_alert, list_alert_destinations and list_alertmanager_silences.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to 'Use this to answer questions about what alerts exist, which are firing, and their severity,' which gives clear context for invocation. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.